Places for People Homes Limited (202111255)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111255

Places for People Homes Limited

26 February 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.

Background and summary of events1

The resident signed the shared ownership lease for his property, which is a ground floor flat, in March 2020. The landlord owns the company which is the developer of the building and the property, and the landlord also uses a management company to manage the building. The landlord and developer are collectively referred to as ‘the landlord’ in this report.
It is noted in the evidence supplied to the Ombudsman that there was a historical leak to a communal pipe behind the resident’s bath, prior to November 2020. Because the resident has not formally complained about the landlord’s handling of the leak, evidence in relation to the leak has not been requested for this investigation.
The evidence demonstrates that the resident contacted the landlord in November 2020 to report damp and mould issues affecting his property.
After attending the property on 27 November 2020 in relation to damp and mould issues, the landlord sent the resident an email. It explained that mould is usually caused by condensation or excessive moisture release (airing wet laundry, showering, saucepans with no lids or steam escaping), insufficient ventilation, poor air circulation, and discrepancies in heating. It advised the resident to clean any mould and consider obtaining a dehumidifier to draw any excessive moisture out of the property. The landlord advised that, if this did not solve the issue then it needed to look at ventilation in the property.
In the resident’s reply of 30 November 2020, he disagreed with the landlord’s advice and asked the landlord to send out a qualified person who had more knowledge about the issues reported. He also advised that, despite waiting for grout in his bathroom to dry out following a previous leak, it was still multi-coloured. The resident also raised concerns regarding the windows in the property and damp behind the bathroom wall.
The landlord responded that the person who attended was qualified to comment on the issues and the advice the landlord had given the resident was accurate. It confirmed that the resident could seek external advice and said it would not take further action regarding the bathroom tiles due to the resident declining its assistance in drying out the tiled floor which remained saturated for a period of two weeks following an accidental leak. It also advised that it had previously investigated the resident’s concerns regarding damp behind the bath and agreed at the time of inspection that there was no damp present.
The resident provided the landlord with a report from a surveyor he instructed, dated 18 December 2020, following their visit of 8 December 2020. In it, the surveyor confirmed that the resident advised of a previous leak behind the bath and the bath panel was removed allowing them to examine the concrete floor under and the service duct area which house the soil and vent pipe. The surveyor assumed that the soil and vent pipe was associated with the flats above. The surveyor said that they obtained higher than normal moisture readings especially adjacent to the soil and vent pipe and it may be necessary to force dry the screed and remove greater areas of floor covering to achieve a satisfactory moisture level. The surveyor noted condensation stains internally and surface moisture to the glazing sections and the window reveals, which they believed was due to the high level of humidity as a result of the evaporation of water above the damp proof membrane in the bathroom. The surveyor found that there was little or no insulation and poor finishing around the window, causing damp penetration and cold bridging which led to the significant problems with condensation. The surveyor recommended: that the resident obtain details of the extraction system to insure it provided sufficient extraction to comply with Building Regulations, more stringent/robust measures to reduce the level of dampness internally, and that the detailing around the window reveals was exposed to enable it to specify improvements in the detailing.
In late December 2020 the resident forwarded the landlord photographs of his home and a letter provided by the resident’s wife’s doctor, noting that the doctor suggested that the resident’s wife would need to move out due to her health if the damp and mould got worse.
On 6 January 2021 the landlord confirmed that it would arrange for a quality inspector and senior manager to attend the resident’s home. The landlord completed an inspection on 11 January 2021. The report from the inspection advised that:
1. The distance between the wall and wardrobe did not allow free air movement and the amount of mould to the rear of the bedroom’s wardrobe and hall cupboards was normal as the lack of air movement dropped the temperature. There would appear to be a lot of clothes for one wardrobe which would not allow air movement around, so they may turn slightly mouldy.
2. A hole was drilled into the bedroom external wall, which was made up of insulation backed plasterboard and the insulation was approximately 75mm deep. Another hole was made into the bedroom window reveal to check the make-up and level of moisture and the reveal was consistent with the other wall with correct thickness of insulation.
3. A reading was taken to the floor under the bath and a reading of 0.7 was given, which was low for this area. A key was rubbed into the discoloured grout to the bathroom floor, and dust blown away, and the grout then gave a uniform colour which demonstrated that the floor was not damp.
On 25 January 2021 the resident provided an updated surveyor’s report completed by his contractor. In the report the contractor concluded that the moisture meter readings beneath the bath were still higher than normal and condensation staining was still evident around the property’s window openings. The contractor reiterated their recommendation that the extraction system was upgraded to comply with the Building Regulations and keep the levels of humidity down, and that further investigation was carried out around the window reveals and windowsills, to prevent cold bridging and the condensation staining.
The landlord replied that during its visit to the property it did not identify any damp or water leaks, and the findings were satisfactory for the property and complied with building regulations. The landlord suggested that the resident turn the heating to a high setting to warm the air in the property, use a fan to circulate and move the air within the property, and set the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans to maximum settings. It explained that if the resident remained dissatisfied, he could approach the warranty provider for the property.
In February 2021, following further contact regarding the damp and mould in the resident’s home, the landlord reiterated its position to the resident.
The resident’s buildings warranty provider contacted the landlord and asked it to acknowledge the issues raised, attend site to investigate the issues, and provide a schedule of works confirming a reasonable timeframe and expected completion date to remedy each issue identified by the resident. The warranty provider asked that, if the landlord believed that the issues noted were not defects, it provide supporting evidence for the warranty provider to review.
The warranty provider pursued a response from the landlord on 30 March 2021 and 13 April 2021, advising on the latter date that the resident’s wife had to move out due to health concerns.
On 8 April 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord regarding the damp and mould in his home, which he reported resulted in his wife having to move out due to health concerns and damage to his belongings. The resident also raised his concerns about the differences in the opinions of his surveyor and the landlord’s. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and confirmed it would respond by 12 May 2021.
On 12 April 2021 the resident discussed the situation with the landlord’s management company, which explained the importance of the resident ventilating and heating the property and wiping away any mould. It also advised the resident to move any furniture pressed against an exterior wall to allow the areas to ventilate and provided a mould care leaflet. The management company explained that mould within the resident’s property was not an area that it managed.
The landlord forwarded the resident’s warranty provider the correspondence and report sent to the resident regarding the damp and mould on 15 April 2021. It confirmed that it found no evidence of water leaks or damp that was not due to the air circulation in the resident’s property.
In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, dated 10 May 2021, it confirmed the actions it had taken and that it found no evidence of water leaks leading to damp. It also confirmed that its findings were satisfactory for the property and complied with building regulations and it provided the resident with the appropriate advice to assist in reducing the amount of condensation he experienced. The landlord advised that it did not consider the issues to be a defect, but it was in the process of liaising with the resident’s warranty provider and would contact the resident following the warranty provider’s feedback.
On 12 May 2021 the resident advised the landlord that he had been given several suggestions by a damp and mould specialist, including to move the thermostat and radiators, and fit air vents to all rooms. On the same day the landlord confirmed that the resident had called to express his dissatisfaction at the outcome of the complaint and it advised him that it would escalate his complaint. The landlord subsequently advised the resident that it would send a further complaint response by 10 June 2021.
In the landlord’s further complaint response of 24 May 2021, it reiterated that it had not established a defect under the resident’s warranty provision and deemed the issues the resident experienced to be down to lifestyle factors. It confirmed it provided appropriate advice on how to improve air circulation and ventilation to help reduce any condensation experienced. The landlord also confirmed that it was awaiting feedback from the resident’s warranty provider, which was the acting arbitrator on this matter, and once it received this it would contact the resident to discuss the outcome.
The resident’s warranty provider instructed a surveyor to attend and complete a report. In the report, dated 16 June 2021, the surveyor concluded that the mould infestation was not caused by any lifestyle behaviours of the occupants of the property but rather due to the floor slab retaining moisture from the plumbing leaks, as the property had not been dried adequately. The surveyor recommended that the landlord employ an insurance property restoration drying specialist to survey the property and determine whether or not the property was now dry and, if the property was not dry to a habitable, to employ the same specialist to dry the property and deal with all associated costs and work.
The resident continued to liaise with the landlord which confirmed on 13 July 2021 that it was waiting on the report from the inspection lead by the resident’s warranty provider. It confirmed it would attend that week “to make good some previous damage” and treat the damp and mould “as a goodwill gesture” whist in attendance.
On 27 July 2021, following the receipt of the warranty provider’s report, the landlord updated the resident that it was awaiting feedback in relation to a scope of works. In the meantime, it asked the resident for any details of demonstrable loss (such as damaged items, costs, and associated photographs) due to the issues in the property to enable it to consider reimbursing the resident.
The resident subsequently provided the landlord a list of the costs he incurred, including clothes, furniture, the surveyor’s report, and his wife’s share of the rent as she could not live in the property.
Following contact from the resident pursuing the works on 4 August 2021, the landlord confirmed that its contractor would contact the resident the next day to confirm an appointment. The landlord detailed the scope of works which included to make good groundworks below the bath where previous plumbing remedial works took place, to provide a dehumidifier for three weeks to assist with the drying out of the property, to visit after two weeks and damp test the area below the bath. Once the property was dry the landlord would provide a report from a surveyor to clarify and report on the moisture levels in the floor in the bathroom. The landlord’s contractor would also complete works to treat the mould, replace the plasterboard area underneath the bath panel and re-fit bath panel, and touch up painting as required.
On 5 August 2021 the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the contractor instructed to complete the works and the scope of works. The landlord subsequently wrote to the resident to confirm that it had sought further guidance from the warranty provider in relation to the scope of works and was awaiting this.
The landlord updated the resident on 11 August 2021 that it was awaiting a response from the warranty provider in relation to its proposed scope of works. It also clarified that, while there was peripheral damp present under the bath at floor level, no ongoing damp issue in other areas of the property was identified. The landlord said it was prepared to reimburse demonstrable losses suggested to be linked to the historical leak within the property, but these needed to be suitably evidenced. It confirmed it was awaiting evidence to demonstrate mould damage beyond reasonable repair or cleaning, cleaning bills or receipts for furniture replaced etc for the items the resident detailed.
On 3 September 2021 a technical surveyor informed the landlord that the floor moisture levels should be measured by a restoration/drying specialist who should measure the moisture content in the floor slab at various locations in the property including using probes to record the level within the slab.
The landlord instructed a damp surveyor to complete a report. In the report, dated 20 September 2021, the surveyor recommended that: the landlord consider introducing additional trickle vents throughout the flat which would assist in providing important background ventilation; consider introducing opening windows to assist with ventilating the flat as some were not able to be opened; discuss with the resident the importance of setting contents back from cooler external wall surfaces that restrict natural air circulation behind them; review the existing extraction system ensuring was operating at its maximum efficiency and that supporting doors to the rooms had a 10mm undercut to encourage the flow of air optimising the extraction performance. The surveyor also made several recommendations for the resident.
On 14 October 2021 the landlord advised the resident that, following the guidance of the report, it was happy cut the bottom of the bathroom door to provide the 10mm suggested gap and refit the bath panel left by previous works. It also confirmed it would have the air ventilation system serviced to ensure that this was working as designed, and as a good will gesture, it would treat and make good any mould present on walls within the property.
However, the resident remained unhappy with the scope of works, in particular that the landlord said the installation of more trickle vents and windows was only a recommendation to manage airflow in the property and not a defect.
On 26 October 2021, following contact from this Service, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that its letter of 24 May 2021 was its final response to the complaint and that the resident may refer his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Terms of the lease

Under the terms of the lease that the resident holds with the landlord, the landlord is responsible for the repair of the structure of the building and the drainage upon the building which does not exclusively serve an individual flat in the building, and the common parts.

Assessment

The resident has provided a letter from his wife’s doctor explaining the impact that living with damp and mould had on her health. The resident has sought compensation for this and has asked to be provided compensation for the cost of the temporary accommodation he paid for, for his wife. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his wife’s medical conditions, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident and we have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his wife’s health. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) if he considers that his wife’s health has been affected by its actions. This is a legal process, and the resident may need to seek independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint. The Ombudsman cannot give legal advice and therefore we cannot comment on this matter further.
As a leaseholder, the resident would be entitled to claim under the buildings insurance policy for the building if his property became temporarily uninhabitable due to repair issues. The landlord would not be expected to provide temporary accommodation for the resident outside the insurance process, but it would be reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with information regarding how to claim under the insurance policy. Therefore, the landlord would not be responsible for the cost of the resident’s wife’s alternative accommodation while the damp issue was being resolved. However, as explained above the resident can make a personal injury claim against the landlord for these costs if he wishes to.
Generally, there is a ‘defects period’ with any new build property of between six and 24 months. During this period the builders/developers (which in this case was a company of the landlord’s) remain responsible for any defects or snagging issues. Once the defects period has ended, any repairs to the interior of the property would be the resident’s responsibility, although the landlord would be responsible for repairs needed to the exterior of the building and communal areas. Latent defects reported after the conclusion of the defects period would become the responsibility of by the warranty/insurance to cover in certain circumstances as set out below:
1. If the contractor becomes insolvent or fails to meet their obligations during the first two years after completion.
2. Against damage caused by defects in specified parts of the home during years three to ten after the building was built.
In this case, the resident reported that the issues he experienced with damp and mould were the result of a defect in the structure of the property. In view of this, a landlord would be expected to carry out its own investigation into the matter and provide the resident with its conclusions within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord conducted an investigation and advised the resident of its position on several occasions between November 2020 and August 2021, whereby the landlord concluded that there was no evidence of any structural defect causing the damp and mould, and rather the damp and mould appeared to be caused by lifestyle factors. The landlord also offered the resident appropriate advice on how to reduce any excess moisture and improve airflow in the property. This advice was reasonable at the time as it was in accordance with findings of its inspection in November 2020 and surveyor’s report of January 2021. It was reasonable for landlord to rely on the opinion given by its qualified staff and contractors at the time concerning the cause of the damp and mould.
However, the resident disputed the landlord’s findings and took the issue up with his buildings warranty provider. Under these circumstances, it would be reasonable for the landlord to liaise with the warranty provider while it completed its own investigations and consider any outcome of the warranty provider’s investigation, which was provided in July 2021. Although the warranty provider’s investigation did not conclude that the damp and mould was the result of a building defect, it identified that the remaining moisture from a historical leak behind the bath panel causing the damp and mould in the resident’s property. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord has considered these findings and accepted responsibility for completing further repairs identified as necessary following the leak. It has offered to complete a scope of works to reduce any damp and mould as a result of the historical leak in line with the surveys completed.
While the resident remains unhappy with the scope of works agreed by the landlord, the evidence demonstrates that these works were in line with the findings of the surveys dated 16 June and 20 September 2021. The surveyor who completed the latter report did recommend some works to improve the ventilation of the property; however, considering that these improvements were not considered a structural defect, the resident would be responsible for these works under the terms of his lease. Therefore, the landlord’s decision not to complete these works was reasonable.
Whilst the Ombudsman notes the resident’s concerns about the scope of works, it is not possible to determine whether the repairs will be successful until they have been attempted. If the resident remains unhappy with the quality of the works completed by the landlord, he may raise a formal complaint regarding this.
The resident has asked the landlord to compensate him for damage caused to his furniture and belongings by the damp and mould. Usually, residents would be responsible for covering the cost of any damage of their belongings through issues such as leaks, via their own home insurance. However, considering the circumstances, the landlord has confirmed that it is willing to pay for any evidenced costs that the resident has incurred as a result of damage from damp and mould to his belongings as a result of the historic leak. The landlord’s request for evidence of the loss of items and costs is reasonable and in line with usual industry practice. In the absence of sufficient evidence of the costs incurred by the resident, the landlord would not be expected to reimburse him for any furniture or belongings.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code explains that landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage two of their complaints process in clear, plain language the complaint stage and, if this was the final stage, details of how to escalate the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service if the resident remains dissatisfied.
While there was no service failure identified in the landlord’s handling of the substantiative issue, in line with the landlord’s obligations as set out in the lease, there was a five-month delay in the landlord advising the resident that its complaint response of 24 May 2021 was its final response and that the resident may approach this Service if he remained unhappy. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and resulted in the resident spending additional time and trouble pursuing his complaint with the landlord and this Service. Given the inconvenience caused, compensation is due in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance.
Compensation of £250 would provide adequate redress for the service failures identified in this investigation and is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website). The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards of between £50 and £250 where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. In this case, the landlord’s delay in informing the resident of the complaint stage and that he could approach this Service in its final response did not affect the outcome of the complaint as the landlord ultimately agreed a way forward to deal with the damp and mould, but this error did cause inconvenience to the resident and compensation is due in view of this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.

Reasons

There was no service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, in line with its obligations as set out in the lease. However, there was a five-month delay in the landlord advising the resident that its complaint response of 24 May 2021 was its final response and that the resident may approach this Service if he remained unhappy. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and resulted in the resident spending additional time and trouble pursuing his complaint with the landlord and this Service. Given the inconvenience caused, compensation is due in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance as detailed below.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 for the time and trouble he has spent in pursuing his complaint with the landlord and this Service, as a result of the complaint handling failure identified.
This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers:
1. Providing further training to its staff that deal with complaints, to ensure that they are adhering to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
2. Any further evidence that the resident may provide in relation to costs he incurred as a result of the damp and mould and write to the resident regarding its decision concerning these costs.